. . . is the title of a propaganda video being shown in some public elementary schools. It bills itself as a general exploration of the many varieties of what a family can consist of—you know, cross-racial couples, adoption and guardianship, families that speak Spanish at home. And of course it goes without saying that gay couples are families too, and anyone who doubts that is on par with people who doubt that cross-racial couples are families. NRO’s Kevin Williamson discovered the video being shown in a town he used to live in and comments:
As a fellow practitioner of the occult arts of persuasion, I must confess my admiration. . . . That’s a Family! is not about tolerance or treating people decently. It is about indoctrination, a fact that its enthusiasts make little attempt to hide. It lists among its endorsers such Democratic worthies as Senator Barbara Boxer, who declares that the film can be used to “break down” attitudes she finds disagreeable. Loret Peterson, a fourth-grade teacher in (of course) San Francisco, wrote that the film provides “a gentle starting point to reach elementary age children with a message of respect for all differences before biases become entrenched and the pressures of middle school set in. . . . We have the opportunity to take an active, moral approach to deflating the power of stereotypes by addressing them in the classroom.”
An active moral approach. I am not at all sure that the government schools are the proper venue for an active moral approach to anything touching fourth-graders and homosexuality. But if children are to have moral instruction in the schools, rather than at home or in the church, then we should probably have a much longer and more detailed conversation than we have thus far about what will be included in that moral curriculum. Is circumspection regarding the situation of a child who identifies four parents consisting of two homosexual couples as his “moms” and “dads” an uncomplicated moral imperative? Hardly. When a child declares, “My two moms are Marilyn and Adrian, and my two dads are Michael and Barry,” that opens up a discussion about which an entire doctoral dissertation in moral theory could be written. Chasnoff and her partisans claim to be driven in part by a desire to prevent bullying, but bullying is precisely what they are engaged in, using the power of the schools to force their political views onto children.
It is interesting to note that the use of the government school monopoly to destroy orthodox Christian commitments (Protestant as well as Catholic!) through the indoctrination of children is nothing new. Horace Mann, the father of the government school monopoly, was a militant Boston unitarian who fiercely hated the traditional Calvinism of the Massachussetts countryside; destroying his state’s Puritan heritage was not his only goal in creating the school monopoly, but it was one important goal. Once the engine of destruction was up and running, Catholics became its target in other parts of the country where Protestant orthodoxy was less contested. Ultimately, however, all orthodox Christianity came under assault. Now the Obama administration is driving to create a national curriculum that will drive schools all the more deeply into the arms of the culture war.
I don’t want schools used as a tool of power on either side of our moral and religious divide. School choice is growing fast, but not nearly fast enough.
December 6th, 2012 | 10:07 am
It seems to me that whether a same-sex couple raising children is a family is a different question from whether you approve of a same-sex couple raising children. The fact is that there are a lot of arrangements that may be perfectly reasonably considered families that don’t consist of a married man and woman raising their biological children.
December 6th, 2012 | 10:27 am
This article hits home as my wife’s most recent addition to her (public school) kindergarten class is a little girl being raised by two moms. It’s amazing how much power those moms wield in terms of latent suing capabilities in this climate of politically correct “familial structures”.
I think Dr. Berner puts forth some good ideas for breaking up the gov’t monopoly: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/11/the-case-for-educational-pluralism
We wrestle with whether or not to continue playing the fiddle in Rome as it burns.
December 6th, 2012 | 10:42 am
David Nickol
Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line between “household” and “family”?
December 6th, 2012 | 11:09 am
[...] Foster reports in these pages today about homosexual propaganda being foisted upon American [...]
December 6th, 2012 | 11:11 am
Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line between “household” and “family”?
Jack Perry,
Well, I’ve been finding the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary quite helpful recently. Here’s one of the definitions of family:
I don’t understand the resentment that would prompt people to deny that something other than a married heterosexual couple and their children can be a family.
Single individuals, for example, adopt children, and even Catholic adoption agencies allow this. Is a mother and her adoptive child not a family? Is the little girl being raised by a lesbian couple to be told she doesn’t really have a family? I am not sure I would stretch it this far, but I know a very intelligent, married, childless couple who consider their dog to be a member of the family.
I think people living together who share very close emotional and financial bonds, particularly if there are dependents among the group, have a right to call themselves a family if they choose, and to be recognized as such.
December 6th, 2012 | 11:37 am
What should Catholics or other “non-liberal” Christians teach their children about two lesbians or two gay men raising children? Should the topic just not be mentioned? Should good Christian parents not permit their children to associate with the children of same-sex parents? What if they live next door? Should Christian children be taught that children of same-sex parents don’t have families?
What about children of divorced and remarried couples. Should good Catholic parents teach their children that divorced and remarried people aren’t actually married at all, are living in adultery, and are having children out of wedlock?
December 6th, 2012 | 11:43 am
David Nickol,
“Resentment” is quite a leap. I’m not sure anyone has elicited that emotion thus far. Hear again one of the main points the article makes: If by having a different definition of family (one based on something more substantive than Merriam-Webster) and believing it to be best for society means that I necessarily “resent” people with different definitions, then there is no room for discussion or diversity of thought. It simply becomes my definition vs. yours.
An end to government monopoly of education means people are free to define the family how they would like but not free to forced others’ consciences to do the same. It’s pretty one-sided at the moment.
December 6th, 2012 | 12:24 pm
Patrick –
Not sure that what we have qualifies as ‘monopoly’. I’m partial to arguments for things like vouchers, of course, but even the system as it stands doesn’t seem to fit the definition.
December 6th, 2012 | 12:40 pm
Whatever happened to “Don’t force your morality on me!”?
December 6th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
Ray –
How about “goverment ‘and their proxies’ monopoly”; i.e. teachers’ unions.
In what ways is that not a monopoly? Who controls the curriculum? Who doles out funds to schools in the system? I’m ready to learn and become more optimistic about government’s hand in education. Just not seeing it right now.
December 6th, 2012 | 1:38 pm
Who controls the curriculum? Who doles out funds to schools in the system?
Patrick,
Government—government of, for, and by the people? Everyone helping to run public education is elected or ultimately accountable to someone who’s elected. The conservative notion that government is some kind of alien, imposed order, and if it would just go away everyone would be better off, is seriously distorting people’s ideas of what this country should be like.
December 6th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Patrick – People can send their kids to other schools than the public ones. As a matter of fact, my parents sent me to a Catholic high school, and I don’t think the law’s changed since then, though I admit it’s been a decade or two…
December 6th, 2012 | 1:54 pm
In response to David Nichol’s last comment, my husband and I have in fact discussed with our kindergartener the complexities of family relationships because she has many friends with stepmoms and stepdads and is concerned herself with the possibility of that happening to her. We decided to explain that we do not believe that divorcing is the right thing “unless you are married to a very bad person” and do not believe that remarrying after divorce is the right thing, but that it is not our job to feel more holy than those people or worry about their soul. As serious Catholics, we feel it is important always to reinforce our worldview, while marrying it to a generous love of all people. Speak the truth always!
One of her teachers is a lesbian with a partner, and we had a similar conversation about that.
December 6th, 2012 | 2:02 pm
Whatever happened to “Don’t force your morality on me!”?
Mike Melendez,
Showing kids who have two mothers or two fathers and saying they belong to a family is no more forcing morality on anyone than saying an unwed mother and her child make up a family, or children and their divorced parents make up a family. The film—which never identifies anyone as gay or lesbian (or even uses the words)—is about the reality that there are indeed different kinds of families out there.
Greg Foster says, “And of course it goes without saying that gay couples are families too, and anyone who doubts that is on par with people who doubt that cross-racial couples are families.” Why didn’t he object to the divorced family, or the single-parent families? With 41% of children born out of wedlock, is it right to “normalize” single-parent families?
It just seems to me that there is something more than concern about morality going on including families that one might reasonably assume are gay makes the video homosexual propaganda, but including single and divorced parents sets off no alarms.
Could this be an example of “anti-gay animus”? Which is the biggest practical problem right now, two mommies, two daddies, or single women bearing children out of wedlock?
December 6th, 2012 | 2:05 pm
I don’t understand the resentment that would prompt people to deny that something other than a married heterosexual couple and their children can be a family.
Geez, David, you don’t have to turn into a snarling bundle of condescension whenever someone asks a question you don’t like. I would wager, though, that most people would actually state that the first image that comes to mind when they hear the word “family” consists precisely of the blood lines created by heterosexual couples, married or otherwise.
Since I enjoy having my hidden flaws exposed, let me follow up. Do I understand correctly, then, that you don’t distinguish between the two terms?
What should Catholics or other “non-liberal” Christians teach their children about two lesbians or two gay men raising children? Should the topic just not be mentioned?
Why do you feel a need to resort to false dichotomies on this issue?
December 6th, 2012 | 2:12 pm
Could this be an example of “anti-gay animus”?
Wow, it never takes long to default to that argument does it? “Resentment”, “analogous to anti-Semitism” “arguments similar to white supremacists” quickly followed by a “I wasn’t really accusing you of that” when someone calls foul on the rhetorical grenade throwing.
Another thread, same song and verse.
December 6th, 2012 | 2:20 pm
David –
“What this country should be like.”
Seems like you have some pretty strong presuppositions coming into this conversation and have labeled everyone accordingly. People are speaking in degrees, not categorically sweeping statements as you suppose.
Would you mind giving us a bit of your vision?
December 6th, 2012 | 2:22 pm
Nothing to do with marriage anyhow, since marriage doesn’t protect a right to be a parent, and unmarried people can legally and ethically parent all the time. Marriage is about the right to have sex and procreate children with each other using the marriage’s own genes, not a right to raise them, or anyone else’s children.
Kids should be taught that they can only have children with someone of the other sex, as the sex they are, and can’t have children with someone of the same sex. So if they want to have children with someone that they love, they have to love someone of the other sex. Right now, schools aren’t teaching that, they are making kids think that they can change sex and have kids with anyone, no matter what sex they are, because it is not prohibited and might indeed be possible someday. It’s the goal of Postgenderists and Queer Theorists and Transhumanists to eliminate gender, but it is unethical and not necessary and too expensive and unsustainable so should be prohibited and ruled out.
December 6th, 2012 | 2:37 pm
“What should Catholics or other “non-liberal” Christians teach their children about two lesbians or two gay men raising children?”
Well, everyone should teach their children that all children have a mother and a father, and so two women or two men raising children are not both related to the children they are raising. It seems to me to be child abuse to withhold that information.
December 6th, 2012 | 2:44 pm
Steve Billingsley,
Actually, here’s what it looks like from my point of view. If anyone even suggests that there may be some kind of “anti-gay animus” at play, a number of participants exclaim, “Oh! We’re being called bigots! This is outrageous! It’s a conversation stopper!” Very conveniently, crying, “I’m so insulted!” cuts off any possible conversation of whether there might not actually be anti-gay animus. So who is throwing the rhetorical grenades?
If accused bluntly of being prejudiced or bigoted on the issue of homosexuality (which virtually never happens here), commenters have the option of saying, “I’m sorry you perceive me that way. I wouldn’t say I’m prejudiced. Let me explain why.” Occasionally that happens. But more often the response is, “This is an outrage!”
December 6th, 2012 | 2:58 pm
What should Catholics or other “non-liberal” Christians teach their children about two lesbians or two gay men raising children?
Teach them that it’s wrong – this is the teaching of the Catholic Church, after all – but that it is not the fault of the children.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:15 pm
David –
Be careful swinging at that straw man; you might end up with a splinter.
Thank you for your war on bigotry and those who apparently practice it by not saying what you would have them say in the way you would have them say it. I wish you well in your efforts.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:18 pm
Steve Billingsley –
One potential explanation for that would be that the argument is frequently accurate. Hardly the only possible explanation, but still.
For example, I asked in a recent thread about marriage why divorce and IVF aren’t higher political priorities than same-sex marriage.
Tom Gilson answered: “I believe political action should be aimed toward the ideal but strategized according to the practical. I would dearly love to see no-fault divorce overturned in favor of some more sane policy.”
I asked in return, “Why – specifically – do you think this particular issue is easier to sell [politically] than legal limits on divorce or contraception? Offhand, I can think of some uncharitable reasons (gays are a minority and some people find them icky) but I’m hesitant to assume something like that.”
Neither he nor anyone else answered. Perhaps you could help me out? If there are reasons for this prioritizing that don’t amount to bias, I would honestly be pleased to hear of them.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:37 pm
David Nickol,
Very convenient point of view for you. But in every case that I referred to it was you who introduced the “suggestions” into the conversation. It isn’t a one-time thing, it’s a pattern. I’m not particularly outraged, the truth is that oftentimes I actually agree with the point you are trying to make in your comments when you actually get around to making the point. I do think that many of the arguments that opponents of same-sex marriage (and I am an opponent) are overblown and that social conservatives’ efforts (and again, I am a social conservative) would be better deployed and strengthening the heterosexual marriage culture and in ensuring that religious institutions maintain as much autonomy as possible in a legal framework that allows same-sex marriage. That being said – by introducing the elements into your comments referenced in my previous comment – I just think you are not only diminishing the effectiveness of the arguments you make (when you actually get around to making one) but unnecessarily poisoning the well. Why should other commenters be put in the position of having to explain why they aren’t prejudiced, particularly if they haven’t made any specific comments that indicate prejudice. If a commenter makes a comment that indicates prejudice, then by all means point that out and challenge it.
I don’t doubt that there isn’t a fair amount of prejudice and anti-gay animus in some opponents of same-sex marriage (and maybe even in some commenters on this blog). But I think that you are way to quick to make that assertion in the context of comments where prejudice and anti-gay animus haven’t been introduced specifically into the discussion. And frankly, it’s just tiresome. It’s a cheap way to argue and I would hope you could do better than that.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:47 pm
Would you mind giving us a bit of your vision?
Patrick,
Haven’t you had enough? :P
As I said, I think we have a government of, for, and by the people. We live in a democracy, and a democracy by most measures that is the freest in the world. If anybody doesn’t like what’s being taught in the public schools, they can try to change it by organizing other parents, complaining to elected officials, running for the school board, bringing a lawsuit, or any other number of ways.
I don’t think it makes sense to speak of a “government monopoly on education.” Which government are you talking about? It’s very common for parents looking for a new place to live to try to pick the area with the best schools. In the area where I grew up (Cincinnati) there are about 30 school districts, one of them considered among the best in the United States. There are also private schools both private and parochial. Each school district is run by the local government, and in a very real way, each district is competing against all the others. Thirty separate governments do not add up to “the government.” You can’t say the 30 school systems in the Cincinnati area are run by “the government.”
Also, when I went to grade school and high school, I went to the Catholic schools, and they were affordable. I know they are very expensive now, but that is not the fault of “the government.” It is partially the result of all the nuns and priests who left religious orders (no more cheap labor in the classrooms) and Catholics who stopped attending church and contributing. Each parish had its own elementary school back when I was a kid. Now my parish school has been closed, and my parish shares a school with two other parishes. Now Catholics want vouchers.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:49 pm
Mike Melendez asked “Whatever happened to “Don’t force your morality on me!”?
It has been revealed to be nothing more than “Don’t force your morality on me while I’m forcing my morality on you!”.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:50 pm
What should Catholics or other “non-liberal” Christians teach their children about two lesbians or two gay men raising children?
Richard M wrote: Teach them that it’s wrong – this is the teaching of the Catholic Church, after all – but that it is not the fault of the children.
========
And depending on the age of the child, teach them that it’s an individual’s responsibility to resolve their psychological problems regarding sexuality, relationships, or any other sphere of life.
A person has developed a homosexual or bisexual mentality and behavior? They have a problem and they are wrong – so they are responsible for resolving it in order to someday establish a committed, heterosexual relationship.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:50 pm
It seems to me to be child abuse to withhold that information.
John Howard,
Child abuse?
December 6th, 2012 | 3:54 pm
Again, for kids starting at 12, it would be a great opportunity for addressing how many myths and lies are being spread in society about homosexuality and bisexuality (like the “born that way” claim, etc.), propagated by people with a homosexualist agenda. (perhaps with consent of the parents)
December 6th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
David and Ray (from earlier) –
Thank you for reminding me of the fact that other types of schooling exists.
Your critique of “monopoly” is fair; I should’ve been more specific. So, specifically, remuneration of local tax revenues exclusively to public schools in a district creates a “monopolistic” (to mean there are no alternatives on which those revenues can be spent by residents of that district) system in which a median income must both pay mandatory taxes in addition to a private or parochial tuition in order to get their kids to an alternative.
Why not let schools compete for those tax revenues instead of guaranteeing them?
December 6th, 2012 | 5:16 pm
Why not let schools compete for those tax revenues instead of guaranteeing them?
Patrick,
For many of the same reasons that most areas have only one gas and electric company. And don’t forget charter schools. Also, public education is one of the things that made this country great. Why sour on it now?
Public education is like congress. People hate congress, but they tend to rate their own representatives highly. Ask people what they think of public schools, and they will say they’re awful. Ask them about the schools their own kids go to, and the majority are satisfied to very satisfied.
December 6th, 2012 | 6:57 pm
What should Catholics or other “non-liberal” Christians teach their children about two lesbians or two gay men raising children?
They should tell them that children have the right to and the need for a mother and a father, well documented in child development literature, and that same sex unions are harmful to the healthy psychological development of children, as demonstrated in a number of research studies. Children should be told that the deliberate deprivation of a mother or a father to a child is an act of great cruelty toward that child.
December 7th, 2012 | 12:38 am
Steve Billingsley–
Can you define just what honest-to-goodness anti-gay animus is and how exactly it one should recognize it when it crops up? (Is there such a thing as “anti-gay animus” or is that just a rhetorical chimera?)
I mean, it seems that the gripe here is about the video’s inclusion of same-sex parents in various representative families. This is deemed “propaganda” (OP) that should be resisted in order to counter the “myths and lies” of the “homosexualist movement” (Heather). If the same-sex-parented families were removed from the video, I imagine the gripe would disappear.
Yet there’s no similarly intense criticism about the video’s inclusion of single-parent families or families where the parents have divorced and remarried–both of which (as Violet nicely points out) are also non-ideal from a Catholic point of view and both of which are far more widespread than same-sex-parented families.
It’s difficult, then, not to get the message that that there’s something *especially* bad about same-sex-parented families, something worse than single-parent families or divorced/remarried families. Indeed, judging from some posts in this thread, a few writers seem to think there’s something especially bad about homosexual people per se (I mean, if *that* isn’t “anti-gay,” then what is?).
It isn’t unreasonable, then, to conclude that the real problem here isn’t the non-standard nature of the families in question but the homosexual nature of the parents in those families. What, then, is inaccurate about concluding that the criticism against the video is grounded in something like “anti-gay animus”?
To put it another way, what exactly would distinguish “anti-gay animus” (supposing there is such a thing) from a principled-but-not-”anti-gay” stance against the video’s inclusion of same-sex-parented families? Is this distinction something that anyone but die-hard opponents of SSM would recognize? (I’m not talking about SSM proponents; I’m talking about non-aligned observers.)
I ask honestly and not as some kind of “gotcha.” If you grant that actual anti-gay animus exists and that anti-SSM arguments can be advanced from such animosity, then surely it is reasonable to ask how you distinguish your anti-SSM stance from the anti-gay one. I’ve been impressed at the clarity of your posts so far, and I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this. Cheers.
December 7th, 2012 | 3:47 am
Yes David, child abuse. Even treason against the country and human rights, a capitol crime that deserves death by firing squad. Pick sides, transhumanism or equality.
December 7th, 2012 | 5:15 am
Jules Ferry, the founder of the modern French public school system and its many imitators in Europe, once remarked that its purpose was “to cast the nation’s youth in the same mould and to stamp them, like the coinage, with the image of the Republic.”
December 7th, 2012 | 5:47 am
No one seems to have considered the possibility that there is no definition of “family.”
As Wittgenstein argued in the Philosophical investigations, there is no reason to look, as we have done traditionally—and dogmatically—for one, essential core in which the meaning of a word is located and which is, therefore, common to all uses of that word. We should, instead, travel with the word’s uses through “a complicated network of similarities, overlapping and criss-crossing” [Philosophical Investigations 66] He demonstrates that it is impossible to devise some definition of “game” that includes everything that we call games, but excludes everything that we do not.
Might not the same be true of the way we use the word “family”?
December 7th, 2012 | 9:05 am
They should also provide their adolescent children with the extensive scientific literature on the serious health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle and dangers to children from the attempts to redefine marriage.
December 7th, 2012 | 10:02 am
“Also, public education is one of the things that made this country great. Why sour on it now?”
David,
Could you point to the survey you seem to be speaking from? “People” is a little to generic.
Again, I’m not throwing out the baby, but looking more in the direction of opening the door to the charter schools you mentioned. Public school boards are at war right now with charter schools because free money is at stake. Preventing competition is like protecting a wound or nursing a fear.
A fair analogy is tenure: public school systems are to competition as tenure is to job performance. Concern for the student is secondary at best.
December 7th, 2012 | 10:47 am
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons –
I’ve asked commenter Blake many times before on this site, “What’s the proportion of ‘gay parents’ who labor to sever all ties with the other biological parent?”
He’s never answered, or to my knowledge even acknowledged, the question. Can you answer it?
December 7th, 2012 | 10:54 am
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons –
I asked you very recently if girls should be told that they are literally more likely to be struck by lightning than to contract HIV from a lesbian encounter?
December 7th, 2012 | 11:09 am
Ray –
Non sequitur. It does not follow that “deliberate deprivation” means “labor to sever all ties”. Day in and day out their is no choice but to deprive the child. Choosing A necessarily means B. No labor required. In this sense, it is the same for divorced parents or a single parent. Culpability shifts with the circumstance.
December 7th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
Patrick –
I think this gets back to the question I asked above; “December 6th, 2012 | 3:18 pm”. Can you answer that question?
December 7th, 2012 | 12:10 pm
JFK,
Good question. I would define “anti-gay animus” in the context of a blog thread (seeing that I can’t see into people’s hearts and know what is and isn’t there – so the only thing that matters in this context is specific comments on blog threads) as a comment that is simply hateful – with no relevance to the topic being discussed or that doesn’t advance the discussion in any way. My comment to David Nickol is that to simply insert assertions of “anti-gay animus” or to make analogies to anti-Semitism or white supremacism into comment streams when no one in that stream has made any specifically hateful statements was irresponsible and counterproductive.
I haven’t made any comment regarding the video (one because until an hour ago I hadn’t bothered to watch it and now that I have – I don’t think it is particularly offensive – I just question why this is a priority for a 4th grade classroom. Honestly, don’t schools have better things to do, like maybe teach math, science, history and reading?) so I really didn’t want to weigh in on something that I didn’t know about.
When I have read the comments (or the blog posts themselves most of the time) I have seen various arguments or reasoning why the commenters or authors oppose the codification of same-sex marriage. I haven’t seen many (or in most cases, any) comments that express specific animus or hatred toward homosexual persons. So I think it is appropriate for supporters of same-sex marriage to counter the arguments or reasoning that the authors or commenters make with arguments and reasoning of their own. I oppose same-sex marriage, but I don’t consider myself entrenched or absolute in that opposition. In other words, I am willing to listen to arguments that disagree with where I currently stand. I don’t think that I am unique, there are probably a lot of people that fit roughly in my category. So you can see why defaulting to name-calling or accusing is not a great strategy to deal with someone like me.
December 7th, 2012 | 12:31 pm
Ray –
How are you gauging the ease of sale? Watching the news to see how oft each makes the headlines? I can’t just assume your premise, especially when it is increasingly NOT an “easy sell” judging by the rate at which states are now passing new legislation.
Though, if I granted your assumption and it was indeed a commonly “easier” issue to garner opposition towards, I would suggest it is because it is counter-creational from a pre-fall perspective, and thus more unnatural at an anthropological level. Divorce, contraception and IVF issue out of a corrupted order, but have more to do with action than being (a heterosexual is not so simply because he commits hetero- acts).
December 7th, 2012 | 1:16 pm
“Showing kids who have two mothers or two fathers ”
Why not show us a square circle while you’re at it? Denial of basic biology is not a sound foundation for school children.
December 7th, 2012 | 2:30 pm
Patrick –
By watching the political maneuvering? I’m not aware of a single attempt in the last two decades (minimum) to, say, amend a state constitution to outlaw divorce – or even restrict the grounds on which a divorce might be sought. Nor have I seen any attempt whatsoever to pass laws outlawing contraception. (I admit I’ve seen some activity aimed at allowing individual pharmacists to not dispense contraceptives, but that’s hardly the same thing.)
Or you could take Tom Gilson’s word for it.
Or note the fact that same-sex marriage has been a recurring theme on
First Things, but I can find only two articles arguing for stricter divorce laws on the First Things site – one from 1997.
Why can I not conclude, “By their priorities shall ye know them?”
December 7th, 2012 | 4:54 pm
@David Nickol.
“I don’t understand the resentment that would prompt people to deny that something other than a married heterosexual couple and their children can be a family.”
Perhaps what you don’t understand is the distinction between reason and resentment.
Of course, you think state edict makes a marriage, as well.
December 7th, 2012 | 5:06 pm
Ray –
To (attempt to) summarize your argument: because of the greater proportion of political action around the legality of homosexual marriage (to divorce or contraception), people must be biased towards homosexuals in a way they are not towards divorcees or “contraceptors”, and unjustifiably so given the destructive nature of all three things. Is that fair?
If that holds up I have 2 responses:
1) Legislatively, the heyday for the contraceptive issue was 1973. I don’t think political action around abortion has done anything but grow more intense. How could a law regulating certain types of contraceptives ever pass if abortion doesn’t fall?
2) Divorce is behind homosexual union as far as political action because the former doesn’t concern the foundational issue of anthropology, which a society has to get right to survive. No bias towards persons, per se, but towards persons’ definitions of persons. Just like contraception, if we don’t get the right definition, hetero-, the fight against divorce is futile.
By the ideal vs. the practical, I think Tom is saying that he’d like (and society would be better off) for all of the above to be more “sane” (which I would call “restorative”) rather than insane (which I would call degenerative) in terms of legislation. Couldn’t agree more.
December 7th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
Mary,
“Showing kids who have two mothers or two fathers”—Why not show us a square circle while you’re at it? Denial of basic biology is not a sound foundation for school children”
The schools are not trying to deny biology. They’re trying to reduce bullying and create a safe environment in which children can feel accepted and focus on their studies.
Schools are not in the business of correcting the way that families describe themselves. If the family says it has two mothers, then you respect the family and describe the mothers that way. If the primary caregiver is a grandmother who wants to be called Nana rather than grandmother, then you call her Nana. If the child has a stepfather that is called “dad,” then you call him dad, and the child talks about “mom” and calls his stepfather “Steve,” then you talk about mom and Steve.
The schools are trying to teach respect for family differences. I think that’s a worthy value.
December 7th, 2012 | 8:15 pm
Adam Baum,
“Perhaps what you don’t understand is the distinction between reason and resentment.”
I think resentment is a fair word to use. Resentment is what we feel when something we believe or value has been insulted or harmed. I think a lot of people on this thread love the ideals of marriage and family and believe that gay marriage and families with two mothers insult those ideals.
How would you describe your feelings?
“Of course, you think state edict makes a marriage, as well”
I assume that you recognize the difference between civil and religious marriage. The Roman Church acknowledges that civil marriages occur among the divorced but is not willing to call those unions sacramental marriages. Meanwhile, the state is not willing to recognize as civil marriages the polygamous unions that some Mormons have.
Just because the state recognizes a marriage, that doesn’t mean that religions or even individuals need to.
December 8th, 2012 | 1:56 am
@Michael:
“Resentment is what we feel when something we believe or value has been insulted or harmed.”
It is my position that the principle difference between what is called “conservatives” and “liberals” is the part feelings play in answering questions of governance. For a liberal, feelings are primary and they make no apology for their primacy.
Here is DN’s question:
“I don’t understand the resentment that would prompt people to deny that something other than a married heterosexual couple and their children can be a family. ”
What DN is trying to assert, perhaps in a fit of projection, is only feelings “prompt” people to reject his position, rather than carefully reasoned, methodical and objective analysis of the elements of a family and its purposes.
“I assume that you recognize the difference between civil and religious marriage.”
Yes, I do. I also recognize the things can be illicit, but still valid.
“Just because the state recognizes a marriage, that doesn’t mean that religions or even individuals need to.”
And here is where we get to the crux of the matter-marriage is a social contract and franchise that does impose duties of deference and recognition on the rest of society.
“Meanwhile, the state is not willing to recognize as civil marriages the polygamous unions that some Mormons have.”
Why not? Polygamy has a long history. Apply Anthony Kennedy’s reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas and there is no basis to prohibit (keep in mind, polygamy is not merely unrecognized, it’s illegal) polygamy. Add the logic that says marriage is not limited to one man and one woman, then what is the basis for limiting the number of participants? If the only requirements are two consenting individuals making reciprocal promises, then on what basis does the state impose arbitrary and capricious limits on consanguinity? What is the state’s interest in preventing the union of two second cousins?
December 8th, 2012 | 2:12 am
@ David Nickol:
“Why not let schools compete for those tax revenues instead of guaranteeing them?
Patrick,
For many of the same reasons that most areas have only one gas and electric company. ”
The traditional reason that is provided for the existence of utility monopolies is that the necessary capital investment provides for diminishing average costs over all ranges of production (and implicitly, the product is not differentiable). Thanks to people who think deeply about these things, the fallaciousness of that logic is cracking, because we know that utility services consist of two discrete components: transmission and generation. Only transmission is a natural monopoly. Generation is not.
Since education does not require capital investment such that there is diminishing average costs over all ranges of production and the product is differentiable, your assertion that schools are like utilities fails a rudimentary Econ 101 analysis. Prudence dictates making arguments within the scope of one’s competence.
December 8th, 2012 | 5:24 am
Ray wrote: I’ve asked Blake many times…
Oh, and where is Blake?
To the censors at FT: we noticed that Blake has vanished, without a trace – yet Michael, Ray, and David are here taking up 80% of the bandwidth with their homosexualist agenda, as another commenter very keenly pointed out recently.
Along with half of my posts that also get censored… it is unfortunate how little of the Bible you take into account when it comes to your editorial line.
You can’t do a good job in misleading people without censoring a lot of people, can you?
December 8th, 2012 | 10:35 am
David would like to inaccurately attribute opposition to the attempts to redefine marriage to an underlying anti-gay animus as has David Blankenhorn who stated, …”to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus.”
The attempt to stop the redefinition of marriage is based in large part on the need to protect children from the severe harm done to them by the deliberate deprivation of a mother or a father and society.
Readers, do not be fooled. Part of the tactic of the advocates of same-sex “marriage” is to try to belittle and intimidate. One attempt at that is to claim that those of us who respectfully disagree with them are bad people, oppressing and hating them. They do this in the hope that we will stop speaking and be viewed as lacking compassion. They misunderstand this: There is a truth to marriage and the needs of children and that truth will not die regardless of the name-calling and the attempts to suppress the truth.
December 8th, 2012 | 12:09 pm
Steve Billingsley–
Thanks for your response. I’d like to put some pressure on it, if I may. You suggest that “anti-gay animus” in a comment thread would rightly only apply to a “purely hateful” comment with no relation to the conversation. But can’t a comment can express animus without mobilizing ad hominem derails? I can imagine a stringently anti-Catholic stance, for example, that never resorts to “hateful” attacks on another person. One doesn’t have to toss around anti-Catholic slurs in order to express a genuinely anti-Catholic (or anti-anything) prejudice. Nor, it must be said, is it automatically a bad thing to *have* animus toward something–or to point out honest-to-goodness animus in the arguments of another.
Here’s the thing: in this comment thread, at least, no one actually called the O.P. (or the article the OP references) a “bigot” or “homophobic.” The question is whether the resistance to SSM (specifically the objections some here have with the inclusion of same-sex parented families in a video about families) stems more from a specific dislike of homosexuality than from a consistent philosophical resistance to non-monogamous heterosexual marriage arrangements.
These two rationales are not, of course, mutually exclusive, and many on this thread have identified more strongly with the latter than with the former. But the notion that it’s automatically an unfair bit of name-calling to raise the question of anti-gay animus seems disingenuous.
It is the case–both in this specific instance about the video and in the larger context of the public marriage debate–that the energy directed at resisting same-sex marriages (a minority case) far out-proportions that directed at, say, speaking out against divorce and remarriage (the majority case by orders of magnitude). This difference fuels popular (i.e., beyond the Church) conceptions of Christians and Catholics as “anti-gay.” It undermines the claim that SSM resistance springs from nothing more than a consistent application of Catholic theologies of marriage and that anti-gay animus has nothing to do with it.
Parsing out these motivations (i.e., being for one model of marriage versus being against homosexuality) also matters on the political level. Arguments in secular venues (e.g., courts) about the legality of SSM or civil unions rely mostly on a philosophical, marriage-is-this-one-thing-and-not-this-other-thing rationale. Such cases lose credibility to the extent that opponents can credibly demonstrate that SSM resistance comes from a specific and faith-based dislike for homosexuality per se.
I get that many in this forum would prefer that the SSM debate proceed on the philosophical grounds rather than being cast as a gay-versus-anti-gay matter. But to many outside observers (and here I’m including myself), the attempt to keep anti-SSM rationales “clean” of anti-gay animus just isn’t convincing. In part, this attempt falters because many interlocutors do actually embrace an anti-”homosexualist” stance.
There’s something bracingly honest, for example, posts by Heather and some others. They oppose homosexuality–full stop. SSM isn’t (or isn’t only) a problem for them because of its departure from the Catholic ideal; it’s a problem because (if I understand their comments correctly) homosexuals are sick, dishonest agents who actively promote evil for themselves and others. “Anti-gay animus” isn’t a dismissal of their rationales; it is a description, just as we would all likely endorse something like “anti-disease animus” or “anti-crime animus.”
It doesn’t help the anti-SSM cause as a whole that SSM opponents who assert more moderate views on homosexuality at times react as if it is automatically bad faith for people (opponents or observers) to notice that anti-gay views exist and question how one (anti-gay) stance differs from another (not anti-gay) one.
I submit that the burden of clarifying the distinctions between these stances falls not on observers but on those advancing anti-SSM claims–that is, if the focus concerns how best to make a positive case for a single model of marriage in the eyes of the US public. Is it worthwhile to oppose SSM without also opposing homosexual behavior and/or gay identities more broadly? If so, how does one do that in a convincing way? I sense that the difficulty or even perceived impossibility of such a task is what leads many anti-SSM spokespeople to call for a retreat/truce from public marriage wars.
This particular comment thread is nearing the end of its online lifespan, I imagine, but I am interested in reading your thoughts. Thanks for listening.
December 8th, 2012 | 12:51 pm
“Part of the tactic of the advocates of same-sex “marriage” is to try to belittle and intimidate. One attempt at that is to claim that those of us who respectfully disagree with them are bad people, oppressing and hating them. They do this in the hope that we will stop speaking and be viewed as lacking compassion.”
In fairness, Doc, I don’t think all progressives, or maybe even most, are that cynical. They actually suffer the delusion that they are the “fact-based community,” that they don’t have an ideology; they have the facts. Their intellectual superiority, they believe, also confers on them moral superiority. After all, they arrive at their moral judgments by reasoning from obvious facts, not from prejudice, bigotry, or blind adherence to outdated superstitions. Ergo, anyone who disagrees with them must, by definition, be irrational, evil, or both. It’s not a tactic; it’s a deeply held–one might even by analogy call it a religious–belief. It is an essential element of progressive dogmatics.
December 8th, 2012 | 12:58 pm
Just wanted to reinsert Adam’s comment for emphasis on the slippery slope here. I haven’t heard any (significant) responses anywhere:
“Add the logic that says marriage is not limited to one man and one woman, then what is the basis for limiting the number of participants? If the only requirements are two consenting individuals making reciprocal promises, then on what basis does the state impose arbitrary and capricious limits on consanguinity? What is the state’s interest in preventing the union of two second cousins?”
Competing visions of morality. Which (over time) is best for the common good of society, not merely the individual?
December 8th, 2012 | 1:26 pm
Patrick and Adam, right, they want to separate marriage from procreation rights, so that married couples don’t have a right to conceive offspring from their own genes. By “they” I mean not just same-sex marriage advocates but also many supposed defenders of traditional marriage who are trying to redefine marriage in order to institute eugenic policies that deny unfit couples from using their own genes to conceive offspring together. These eugenicists also don’t want to limit reproduction to a man and a woman for the same reason – they want to do genetic engineering to improve the health of future babies.
Marriage should always approve and allow the conception of offspring using the couple’s own genes, no marriage should ever be prohibited from conceiving offspring together using their own genes (that doesn’t mean we can’t ban unsafe technologies, it just means we have to approve and allow marriages to use their own genes if they can – we can’t prohibit them from conceiving children by any and every method). Same-sex couples should be publicly prohibited form conceiving offspring by any method.
December 8th, 2012 | 4:01 pm
JFK’s message of December 8th, 2012 | 12:09 pm, sums up the conflict over “anti-gay animus” extremely well. I think it could be the starting point for good discussion of the topic.
December 8th, 2012 | 4:14 pm
David would like to inaccurately attribute opposition to the attempts to redefine marriage to an underlying anti-gay animus as has David Blankenhorn who stated, …”to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus.”
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
Please note that you are addressing this issue as if David Blankenhorn said, “To my deep regret, the opposition to gay marriage stems from an underlying anti-gay animus.” You quoted him correctly, but you insist on responding to what he said as if he had said something quite different.
December 8th, 2012 | 5:41 pm
Adam Baum,
“It is my position that the principle difference between what is called “conservatives” and “liberals” is the part feelings play in answering questions of governance. For a liberal, feelings are primary and they make no apology for their primacy”
I think you’ll find that most people believe that their side bases its positions on reason and the other bases its positions on mere feeling.
“What DN is trying to assert, perhaps in a fit of projection, is only feelings “prompt” people to reject his position, rather than carefully reasoned, methodical and objective analysis of the elements of a family and its purposes”
I can understand why you would think so based on what David has said on this thread. I’ve been reading his contributions since he first started commenting on this site, and my general impression is that he believes that many commenters do in fact come at these issues through reason.
“And here is where we get to the crux of the matter-marriage is a social contract and franchise that does impose duties of deference and recognition on the rest of society”
What you say here is certainly true, but I would add that these duties are pretty light. I was friends with one couple for years before I learned that they were not married.
“Why not? Polygamy has a long history.”
At the time that Utah entered the nation, it knew that the rest of the United States wouldn’t annex a state with legal polygamy. I have no interest in legalizing polygamy either. There’s too much room for abuse of women, and it creates competition among men for women.
“Add the logic that says marriage is not limited to one man and one woman, then what is the basis for limiting the number of participants? If the only requirements are two consenting individuals making reciprocal promises, then on what basis does the state impose arbitrary and capricious limits on consanguinity?”
I have met in person gay men and women in long-term relationships in every job I’ve ever had and in every city I’ve lived in. I have yet to meet someone in a polygamous or incestuous relationship. Even as the divorce rate has risen, the romantic ideal has gotten only stronger. People look for their one true love, just as Genesis describes.
December 8th, 2012 | 6:04 pm
Heather,
“To the censors at FT: we noticed that Blake has vanished, without a trace”
Blake comes in and out, and when he comes in, he comes in at different paces, which is to say that sometimes he contributes a little and sometimes a lot. Be patient. He’ll be back again, unless he’s taken up different interests. There’s no reason to assume that First Things has been refusing to post his comments.
“yet Michael, Ray, and David are here taking up 80% of the bandwidth with their homosexualist agenda”
Are you suggesting that First Things not post comments that they and you disagree with?
“Along with half of my posts that also get censored”
I confess that I’m a little frustrated myself with the new moderation policy. When Joe ran things, I knew what would and wouldn’t get posted. I haven’t figured out the new system yet, but I still admire the fact that First Things makes it so easy to post and converse. I think they’re quite generous.
By the way, I think “censor” is too strong a term. It is their site after all.
“it is unfortunate how little of the Bible you take into account when it comes to your editorial line. You can’t do a good job in misleading people without censoring a lot of people, can you”
I encourage you to reread some of the comments they didn’t post and consider whether there might be some other reasons they didn’t post your comment.
December 8th, 2012 | 6:44 pm
Rick,
“David would like to inaccurately attribute opposition to the attempts to redefine marriage to an underlying anti-gay animus as has David Blankenhorn who stated, …”to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus.”
But neither Nickol nor Blankenhorn have argued that anti-gay animus is the only or even the major, most important, or most significant reason why some people oppose gay marriage. Blankenhorn says that anti-gay animus is “IN PART” a reason.
And Nickol says, “It just seems to me that there is something more than concern about morality going on.”
Both men qualify their statements much like you do when you say, “The attempt to stop the redefinition of marriage is based IN LARGE PART on the need to protect children”
Can you explain what other things motivate people to oppose gay marriage?
“Part of the tactic of the advocates of same-sex “marriage” is to try to belittle and intimidate.”
I see this tactic being used on both sides, and I see it when people misquote others.
December 8th, 2012 | 6:52 pm
Fred,
“They actually suffer the delusion that they are the “fact-based community,” that they don’t have an ideology; they have the facts.”
You say that the problem with liberals is that they think they have the facts, but Adam argues above that the problem with liberals is that they place too much stock in feelings. What the two of you share is the conviction that liberals are self-deceived.
Why not simply argue your case rather than propose that liberals are incapable of honest argument?
December 8th, 2012 | 8:08 pm
Fred,
Thanks. I agree with your comment that
“They actually suffer the delusion that they are the ‘fact-based community,’ that they don’t have an ideology; they have the facts.”
They have demonstrated (in discussions on the attempts to redefine marriage) that they do not understand the facts. Here are three glaring errors they consistently make: (1.) children do not need a mother; (2.) children do not need a father and (3.) children in same sex unions have the same psychological health and academic achievement as children raised with their biological parents. They cannot cite a single study that supports their attempts to deny children a mother or a father. Delusions indeed!
December 9th, 2012 | 12:58 am
Michael wrote: “There’s no reason to assume that First Things has been refusing to post his comments.”
They refuse to post many of my comments – there is plenty of reason to assume that they could be refusing to post anyone else’s.
Michael: “Are you suggesting that First Things not post comments that they and you disagree with?”
I see no good reason why posts from you, Ray, and David are allowed and many other people’s posts which question your views and present counter-arguments to your claims are censored.
Who FT is and what they agree with is an interesting question – certainly they wouldn’t censor my posts if they agreed with me or if they wanted the debate to be balanced. Obviously if they censor my counter-arguments, they stunt debate and prohibit the development of the reasoning underpinning my views. They have certainly achieved this goal systematically enough.
“By the way, I think “censor” is too strong a term. It is their site after all.”
No matter how thin you slice it…
“I encourage you to reread some of the comments they didn’t post and consider whether there might be some other reasons they didn’t post your comment.”
I encourage you to be less afraid of re-examining counter-arguments to your claims. Censoring criticisms will not make any flaws in your thinking “right,” no matter how much you wish it did.
Forcing others to be silent is not an honest way to win a debate, it’s an underhanded and misleading way. No matter how often it happens any time you and Nickol comment on anything regarding homosexuality on this blog and the editors do not allow a response, it’s just an illusion on your side that your claims stand unquestioned.
It really does raise the question of what the FT blog comment section is for.
December 9th, 2012 | 6:31 am
JFK asks
“Is it worthwhile to oppose SSM without also opposing homosexual behavior and/or gay identities more broadly? If so, how does one do that in a convincing way?”
In my submission, yes.
Those of us who find the public purpose of civil marriage in the rule that, “the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” and who see in that rule the principle distinction between marriage on the one hand and civil unions and unregulated cohabitation on the other, insist that
(1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament
(2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code
(3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
In 1998, in France, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year
This is the view which prevailed in France in the Court of Cassation in 2007 and in the Constitutional Council in 2010 in the famous Bègles case and It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that those decisions were are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into the interpretation of the Code.
December 9th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
FT has never failed to post any of my comments, in opposition to redefining marriage
December 10th, 2012 | 2:24 am
Heather,
“They refuse to post many of my comments – there is plenty of reason to assume that they could be refusing to post anyone else’s”
First Things is posting some or many of your comments. Do you really believe that they are refusing to post ALL of Blake’s? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that Blake has taken his interests elsewhere for a time?
“I see no good reason why posts from you, Ray, and David are allowed and many other people’s posts which question your views and present counter-arguments to your claims are censored”
I could be wrong, but I believe that both Ray and David have mentioned that some of their comments have not been posted, and as I mentioned, some of mine have not.
“Who FT is and what they agree with is an interesting question – certainly they wouldn’t censor my posts if they agreed with me or if they wanted the debate to be balanced.”
I think it is pretty clear that every writer on First Things believes that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage is a travesty.
The moderation policy states that comments that “do not advance the engagement of the topic will be deleted.”
The policy is not about whether the moderator agrees with your view; it’s about whether your comment advances the topic. Do you understand that distinction?
As I said before, when Joe moderated the comments, I understood what was and wasn’t considered “advancing the engagement.” I don’t understand that line very well under the current moderators.
“I encourage you to be less afraid of re-examining counter-arguments to your claims.”
I’m not afraid to counter any claim. What makes you think I am?
“Forcing others to be silent is not an honest way to win a debate, it’s an underhanded and misleading way.”
The editors of First Things are on “your side.” They are not on mine. Think about that for a while.
Again, I encourage you to reread the comments that the moderator didn’t post and think about whether your comment actually “advances the engagement of the topic.” Usually, when I take the time to reword or restructure the comment, it gets posted, though again, I have to say that the moderator’s criteria are so fuzzy that I can’t always tell why one comment gets posted and another doesn’t.
Michael PS is dead set against gay marriage and homosexuality, and he says all of his comments get posted, so perhaps you might consider there’s something about the way you comment that is at issue.
December 10th, 2012 | 11:50 am
Michael PS, I think you would support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise. It’s much like France’s.
December 10th, 2012 | 12:25 pm
John Howard
I would prefer to see it framed in terms of general principles, as in the Code Civil, which addresses all forms of assisted reproduction and surrogate gestation.
December 11th, 2012 | 3:50 am
Heather: “They refuse to post many of my comments – there is plenty of reason to assume that they could be refusing to post anyone else’s”
Michael replied: “First Things is posting some or many of your comments.”
No, Michael. FT is NOT posting many of my comments, not some, many. And they mostly question your homosexual agenda.
Michael: “Do you really believe that they are refusing to post ALL of Blake’s? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that Blake has taken his interests elsewhere for a time?”
If Blake got tired of how many comments were censored and how many people were banned on FT who criticized your views? That would be a reasonable explanation of why he had decided the comment area here is so manipulated to promote your homosexuality agenda that he went elsewhere. Or maybe he was banned. Given the high level of censorship, that’s very plausible too.
Heather: “Forcing others to be silent is not an honest way to win a debate, it’s an underhanded and misleading way.”
Michael said: “The editors of First Things are on “your side.” They are not on mine. Think about that for a while. ”
They are massively censoring arguments criticizing your positions and ideology, while you and Nickol get a lot of space here. Think about that for a while.
==============
Michael: “Michael PS is dead set against gay marriage and homosexuality, and he says all of his comments get posted, so perhaps you might consider there’s something about the way you comment that is at issue.”
I have never seen Michael PS criticize many, many aspects of your homosexuality agenda and ideology and, like you, couldn’t know what he believes as a consequence. Whatever criticism he makes is usually very limited.
You might consider that you conveniently left out this fact. Along with the meaning of the term “sockpuppet.”
December 11th, 2012 | 10:37 am
Heather
I have repeatedly criticised the redefinition of marriage. I have also opposed surrogate gestation, the trafficking in human gametes and joint adoption by unmarried (in the traditional sense) couples.
What more do you wish me to say?
December 11th, 2012 | 2:29 pm
Heather,
“If Blake got tired of how many comments were censored and how many people were banned on FT who criticized your views?”
That’s certainly a possibility. It seems less likely since Blake has a history of dropping out and returning.
“They are massively censoring arguments criticizing your positions and ideology, while you and Nickol get a lot of space here.”
Except that some of my comments criticizing your positions aren’t posted. I take those rejections to mean that I should tone down the rhetoric or shift the critique. I don’t take them as censorship. I wonder why you do.
“I have never seen Michael PS criticize many, many aspects of your homosexuality agenda and ideology and, like you, couldn’t know what he believes as a consequence.”
Michael PS and I had an extensive series of conversations a year or so ago. I know where he’s coming from and what his positions are. He’s a good debater. I don’t agree with him, but I admire his quality of mind and his ability to argue without getting personal.
I don’t engage his arguments these days because I’ve learned what I can from him. I find his understanding of the relationship between church and state to be utterly foreign to the way Americans understand things.
“Along with the meaning of the term “sockpuppet.”
I had to look up the term, but it gave me a good laugh. I think you might dial down the paranoia a bit.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact